Introduction
The article “Whole of Government Models of Estate Regeneration: The way forward?” by Kathy Arthurson examines some of the whole of government estate regeneration approaches and evaluates the pros and cons of different models in addressing inequality on estates in Australia. Kathy Arthurson is an associate professor and researcher at Flinders University, and a research fellow at the University of South Australia. Evaluating the findings of the article under consideration, it should be stated that the research conducted by the author may be described as thorough and reliable which is proved by a variety of sources used in it, unbiased approach, appropriate use of a tentative language and trustworthy conclusions made in the final part of the article.
Main body
In her article, Arthurson discussed different models the government is implementing in addressing inequality on estate regeneration. The first part of the article discusses historical context within which whole of governmental models were formed. In particular, the two areas subjected to this historical research are Queensland with its managerial reforms to the housing authorities and New South Wales and South Australia with their estates serving as research facilities for the case study. Next, the article shifts to the major rationale for adopting whole of governmental approaches in regeneration policy. Further, the other projects with similar aims, but with different bureaucratic structures, are compared and contrasted with a purpose of finding the most successful of them. In the final part of the article, the author makes a conclusion concerning the major tensions connected to implementing different models in addressing inequality on estates. Overall, the article suggests that the whole of governmental approaches to accommodation services planning and delivering confront the principles of social justice and traditional public sector objectives.
Analyzing the reading’s contents, it should be said that the coverage of the literature in it is considerable because the author resorts to the use of empirical analyses, and logically and coherently includes its results to the article. However, some insignificant problem can be seen in the fact that the article does not concentrate on recent research reports. Being written in 2003, the article mainly discusses the sources from 1997 to 1999. Such state of affairs makes the article’s conclusions outdated in some way which is explained by the fact that the situation with Australian models in addressing inequality on estates is dynamic and changes rather quickly (Loobuyck 2005). The article relies on a variety of appropriate materials such as books, journal articles, research reports made on the results of five case study regeneration projects, and interviews and surveys held in different parts of Australia. The author addresses different approaches existing among the representatives of state bureaucratic regimes of estate distribution modelling and planning. Among them are Paterson, Lane and Orchard. In addition, through the whole article, numerous references to governmental and public research studies and investigations are made which helps see the true picture existing in the sector of estate regeneration modelling in Australia.
The development of article’s ideas is clear and logical which is achieved due to its organization. Arthurson leads her audience through the problems of Australian public sector doing so step by step and in a consequential manner. She begins with the problems identified as the main difficulties in the estate system existing during the current period, and shifts to varied methods and approaches developed by governmental specialists in different regions of the country including Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia. In addition, governmental organizations of different levels are discussed beginning from the local level, and ending with the State Government along with its policies. When the major strategies in public sector are identified, possible solutions to inequality in estate modelling are addressed. The linkages between social, economic and physical inequality on the estates are discussed. Then, particular measures which can be implemented across a range of governmental portfolios in education, health and police are evaluated. All of that creates a complete picture in the audiences’ minds concerning the real situation in estate regeneration inequality in Australia.
The article appears unbiased because it evaluates different areas in Australia, and different communities of people inhabiting these areas. In addition, the article uses research studies conducted by different specialists including state social workers, and public services’ employees which have their independent vision of the situation. It considers different sides of the argument such as new public management strategy developed in the 1990s, possible solutions to inequality problem registered as a result of recent sociological research studies, bureaucratic structures in estate sector along with their problems, governmental portfolio integration strategies, service coordination concepts and governmental cost minimisation strategies. Such comprehensive research helps see the general picture in this sector, and evaluate it in an unprejudiced way.
The article can be evaluated as a piece with an appropriate use of tentative language. Through the whole paper, such structures as “can somehow deal with”, “that coordination provides improved access to services and can somehow address inequality”, “at Manoora, the whole of government model appears to be evolving more successfully” can be found (Arthurson 2003, p. 28, 29, 31. The use of such words as “seems”, “suggests”, “appears to be” shows that the author is careful with her conclusions, and is not in a hurry to make loud statements. As a result, the significance of the article’s findings is not overstated. The fact that overstatement has no precedent in the paper is also supported by the findings of the other authors in this area who also believe that social injustice in the Australian estate regenreation should be avoided to the extent in which it is reasonably possible (Cuthill 2003; Greed 1999; Badcock 1997). In this paper, Arthurson states “questions are raised about whether further radical restructuring of government bureaucracy is necessary in order to improve inter-agency cooperation and support or lead to whole of government approaches” (2003, p. 34). Though being rather daring, similar statements are made by the other honest researchers who also support the necessity of critical changes in the situation with government bureaucracy in estate sector (Anderson 1999; Fincher & Jacobs 1998; Lane 1997). These specialists are concerned about the fact that the estate system is lacking important principles of democratic values and unprejudiced approach to people from different social layers in its foundation (Jacobs 1996; Beck 1992).
The reading concludes with a synopsis of the main findings of the research. In this conclusion, the author summarizes the main problems existing in the sphere of estate regeneration in Australia; she also comments on the achievements made by the government with the purpose to improve situation. Besides, among the important findings of the article described in the conclusion are the facts proving that the current situation in estate regeneration in Australia is still connected with a number of serious problems such as bias, discrimination and social injustice. According to Arthurson (2003, p. 34),
The public policy framework is significantly financially constrained. Obviously, better-coordinated services will be of little benefit if disadvantaged residents are denied access to basic requirements such as schools. For these reasons, greater commitment to public investment in social and community infrastructure appears a critical component for the success of whole of government models of regeneration. Indeed, there is a need to undertake more derailed explorations of how whole of government models are being implemented across Australia.
This conclusion can be evaluated as reasonable and appropriate with regards to the explored facts, and numerous difficulties that economically disadvantaged people face on a daily basis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article “Whole of Government Models of Estate Regeneration: The way forward?” by Kathy Arthurson presents a thorough research on the social injustice existing in estate regeneration modelling and planning concepts by the government in Australia. In this paper, the author examines a variety of reliable sources within the period of last fifteen years to make conclusions concerning the real condition in the whole of government regeneration approaches. The findings of the article are unbiased which can be supported by the fact that Arthurson analyzes different geographical areas in Australia where people of different social and economic status reside. In the final part of the article, important statements are made regarding the situation currently existing in estate regeneration in Australia and possible models which can effectively improve the state of affairs with social injustice in the sector.
References
Anderson, K 1999, ‘Reflections on Redfern’ in E. Stratford (ed), Australian Cultural Geographies, pp. 69-86.
Arthurson, K 2003, ‘Whole of Government Models of Estate Regeneration: The way forward?’, Just Policy, no. 29, pp. 26-35.
Badcock, B 1997, ‘Recently observed polarising tendencies and Australian cities’, Australian Geographical Studies, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 243-259.
Beck, U 1992, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications, London.
Cuthill, M 2003, ‘The contribution of human and social capital to building community well-being: A research agenda relating to citizen participation in local governance in Australia’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 373-391.
Fincher, R & Jacobs, J 1998, Cities of Difference, Guilford Press, New York.
Greed, C 1999, Social Town Planning, Routledge, London.
Jacobs, J 1996, Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City, Routledge, London.
Lane, J 1997, Public Sector Reform: Rationale, Trends, and Problems, SAGE Publications, London.
Loobuyck, P 2005, ‘Liberal multiculturalism’, ETHNCITIES, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 108-123.